Graham Pocket Holster (Maverick)

[sharp]

I just received a Graham pocket holster from Rohrbaugh today.  While it seems well made, I must admit I'm a little bit dissapointed.  One of the main reasons I elected to buy a pocket holster was to eliminate the "print" of the gun as seen by anyone looking.  In my opinion this holster only minimally reduces the obvious print of the gun.  I don't know if it's because the leather is too thin or if it should come up and cover more of the gun.  What do you all think?  Am I asking for too much?  Is there a better design out there?  I don't feel carrying with this holster, as nice and pretty as it is, is much of an advantage over just carrying in my pocket w/o a holster.

[Mr_Jody_Hudson]

Check out a design, like the K&D in the banner ad above!  I have not found any pocket holsters that print less than the naked pistol, after they are broken in... unless they have the magazine under the pistol grip and better yet the magazine pocket PLUS a cover slip of leather over both of them like some of the back pocket holsters have.

[sharp]

What's the point, other than placing the gun in a little better position, of having a pocket holster if it does not print less than the naked gun?

[Mr_Jody_Hudson]

Sharp,

I have a couple for larger pistol pocket holsters, that have the mag pocket and they don't print.

Otherwise, you are correct; safety of keeping pocket lint and sand and stuff out of the pistol, positioning, and that's it.

With the mag pocket attached under the grip, no printing in untight pants, with cover flap, no printing in tighter pants.

If you have not marred the holster in any way I wonder if they will take it in trade for one with a mag pocket?

[BillinPittsburgh]

It isn't that a pocket holster won't print, it is that the print will look like something other than a gun.

I frequently carry my North American Arms .380 (50% heavier than a Rohrbaugh) in a Maverick holster, and while it is obvious that something is in the pocket, it looks nothing like a gun.  The anti-print panel is a big help.

The pants have a lot to do with printing.  "Relaxed fit" pants or equivalent will greatly reduce printing.  I can carry a Glock 26 in the pocket of relaxed fit dress slacks, while a Kel-Tec P-32 might print through the fabric of more snugly fitting pants.

I prefer a pocket holster to permit a full firing grip while the gun is still holstered (as any good holster should) so that I can have my hand discreetly on the gun if I notice unavoidable trouble coming.

[DDGator]

Please don't carry without a holster!

A pocket holster does many things: 1) covers and protects the trigger (most important function of all holsters); 2) orients the gun for safety (barrel down) and for proper and consistent grip and draw; 3) distributes the weight of the gun for less sagging and easy of carry; 4) disguises the shape (prints as a wallet or other square shape; 5) protects the finish of the gun.

Dropping a gun in your pocket accomplishes none of this -- and is potentially unsafe.  I can't imagine how it could print less.

Thicker leather will only make the whole rig thicker.  If you want to totally change the shape, try a holster with an ant-print panel -- sometimes referred to as a back pocket model although it can be used in either pocket.  K&D makes one with a removable anti-print panel so you can use it or not -- depending upon your needs and your pants.

I think you are probably giving the sheeple too much credit.  Just because you can see it, doesnt mean others will.  I have carried various guns, including G26s and PM9s and J-frames in pocket holsters for years -- and never had anyone but my wife ask what was in my pocket.

[sharp]

Thanks for your replies.  When it comes to carrying in my pocket with or w/o a holster it really is not a safety issue as I do not carry with a round chambered.  I was considering carrying with a round chambered once I got a pocket holster depending on the security of the design.  However I quickly decided against it.  The fit is not at all tight; the gun slips in and out of the holster very easily.  I do like the fact that by carrying in a holster I will hopefully accumulate less lint and crud in the pistol and that it holds the gun in a position that can be easily drawn from.  But I still think that it prints too much.  It obviously looks like a gun; not a wallet; not a square object; but a small gun!  I may try one of the holsters with the mag pouch built in or one of the rear pocket holsters as some of you suggested.  Thanks again.
Jeff

[DDGator]

Uh oh... another can of worms...

The R-9 is designed to be carried with a round in the chamber.  It is safe to do so when done properly and with a proper pocket holster.  Pocket holster retention does not need to be tight -- gravity and your pocket will hold everything in place with minimal retention.  

IMHO, semi-autos should be carried with one in the pipe.  When you need a gun like this, you need it fast.  You might need to get it with one hand while fending off an attack with the other or unlocking a door or doing any number of other things.  You also run the risk of not having the first round chamber properly when done in a rush, and you handicapp yourself by being one round down.

All that being said -- an R-9 with an empty chamber is better than no R-9 at all -- but not nearly has useful as one that is fuly loaded and ready to rock.

Not intended to disparage you in any way -- just my two cents.

[RJ HEDLEY]

I agree 100% with Gator on this.   Just another 2 cents worth....

[doctordun]

If I'm using a pocket holster and the print looks like a gun instead of a bulge, my pants are too tight/pocket too small. I regularly pocket carry my glock 27 in cargo pants from Cabellas.(discussed elseware on this forum) Some of my pocket holsters are loose and others form fitting. Again, the size of my pocket and tightness of my pants determine which gun and holster I carry. If you can't hide a keltec 32, you're doing something wrong. My R9 is almost the same size with more weight. If I only had one gun, my choice of pants would narrow considerably. A proper shirt choice also makes more things possible. More guns, more holsters, more choices, more fun.
These are my personal thoughts and are by no means meant as a criticism.

[Richard S]

I always carry my R9s with a round in the chamber -- and in one of RJ's splendid pocket holsters which fully covers the trigger mechanism.  In my opinion, to carry it otherwise, would be just to have an elegant hunk of metal in my pocket.

Different strokes . . . .

RS

[Richard S]

And by the way, R. J. Hedley's so-called "Back-pocket" holster -- a full-counter-print design which he invented, imprints if at all as a wallet or address book.  I always carry mine in the strong-side front pocket or in the left-side vest pocket of my suit coat.  (A rose by any name . . . .)

RS

[BillinPittsburgh]

A pocket holster won't work unless it is loose fitting.

A belt holster is anchored to the belt, and that allows you to separate the gun from the tightly-fitted holster that is necessary for security in this mode of carry.  In a pocket, the holster is not anchored by anything, and you don't want to draw the holster along with the gun.